I wonder what new and novel objections that the state of Utah will conjure up
when it appeals to the Supreme Court the now confirmed ruling that same sex
couples in Utah have a right to legally wed.

The states rights bugle
call isn't working all that well. Arguments about children have been
laughed off by most of the Federal district courts. Can't use religion
(unless you are a corporation seeking to end birth control that is). We all
know that voters can not pass an initiative that violates Constitutional law (
the Supreme Court already decided that part).

I doubt the
"icky" argument will work, so I anxiously await the innovative arguments
that will be put to the Justices of our Supreme Court.

Interesting. A citation to this article appears in the Twitter stream of EQCF,
which I've been following for some time. EQCF aggregates filings and court
decisions, with links to the full text, usually posted on Scribd. It's a
valuable source for those following legal developments on the subject of
marriage equality.

And now, thanks to a retweet of AppellateDaily, it
includes Dennis Romboy as one of the quoted authorities!

@light and liberty While you may believe your version of a God, which just
happens to always agree with you, is the Supreme Court luckily for us mortals
your version of God holds no relevance in our legal system.

Utah gave up any hope of logical legal reasoning to not accept same-sex
marriage, when the Judge Waddoups ruled Utah's criminalization of
cohabitation violated the due process and First Amendment religious freedom
rights and ruled Utah's law criminalizing polygamy is unconstitutional. If
the state allows polygamy marriages, then logically shouldn't the state
allow and recognize same-sex marriages, especially since over 1000 were legally
performed already?

Be great if we could all accept the validity of the various court rulings on
Same Sex Marriage - which will harm no one - and move on to things that are
really important like taking care of the poor the sick and the afflicted.

If people looked at marriage as the selfless union of families and not the
selfish fulfilling one's self, families wouldn't have many of the
problems they do now. Fewer breakups, less heartache, and not so much pressure
to mandate by word of federally appointed kings that we award and support a
selfish mockery of the most beautiful and most difficult promise we make to one
another, to complete one another.

The whole debate on the legalization of marriage will be coming to an end in the
next few years. It will be legal in all states in the country and adults will
be able to legally marry any other adult of their choosing for whatever reason.

Conservatives and religions can kick and scream that they don't
like it but it will happen. Equality and civil rights in this country move
forward despite those calling to halt progress. There are already many churches
that now recognize that SSM is acceptable and many more will follow. Most
churches in the next few years will do the same. There might be a few that a
decade from now still do not recognize and perform SSM but they will be
considered extreme and irrelevant. The LDS church will probably have a "1978
style" revelation in the next 10 years on SSM and in 30 years they will try
and argue that they were never against it.

Equality will move
forward. It is just a matter of time now. The war is mostly over, it is just
time to clean up the battlefield.

"I bet if Amendment 3 was offered again for a vote, it wouldn't
pass."

I'll bet you are correct.

However,
Amendment 3 was an illegal construct, as citizens can not "vote upon"
the civil rights of their fellow citizens. Those caught up in the trappings of
magical thinking need to understand that not being able to unjustifiably force
people to conform to how you want them to be, isn't an infringment on your
freedoms.

Which God should be accepted
as "the" God? The God accepted by Latter-day Saints? Evangelicals?
Catholics? Protestants? Jews? Muslims? Wiccans? Buddhists? Pagans? Satanists?
Deists (like a lot of the Founding Fathers, who accepted a Creator but not any
of the established religions)? By [fill in the blank with every other religion
practiced in the United States]? And what about the people who are agnostic or
atheist?

That is the crux of the problem. I know and love God and His
gospel that I know from my faith. Others feel the same way about the God and
gospel they know from THEIR faith (which is different in several ways from what
I believe). And still others don't accept the concept of God, or
aren't sure whether there is a God and, if there is, which one is
correct.

That is the wisdom and brilliance of the First Amendment. NO
God or religion can be established as "the" God and religion of the
country. We believe as we deem correct, but don't impose our belief on
everyone else. That is the right, fair and equitable thing to do.

It will be more interesting to see what convoluted legal reasoning the supremes
might have to grant that same sex marriage is a "right." It may even
exceed Justice Roberts' gymnastics in ruling Obamacare is constitutional.

Jamescmeyer says:"... and support a selfish mockery of the most
beautiful and most difficult promise we make to one another, to complete one
another."

Why is it that your straight marriage is "the most
beautiful and most difficult promise we make to one another, to complete one
another", and the marriage of an LGBT couple is "the selfish fulfilling
one's self"?

I just don't get it, James. Seriously,
why is it that LGBT couples are selfish for wanting to marry but straight
couples aren't?

Ten days to file a request for a stay with the Supreme Court to hold the course
of no gay marriage for the time being and the Utah Attorney General misses the
deadline. The Utah Attorney General in Utah is an elected position.
Doesn't the guy want to keep his job? Is there some polling that reflects
that more Utahns now favor same-sex marriage than oppose it? I am at a loss why
he missed the deadline.

That was one of the most well-thought out and intelligent
comments I've read on this sad excuse of a forum. Thank you for being
someone who understands not only Constitutional Law and Theory, but theology
from a secular point of view as well as religious.